[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Participation on LNC email list

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

All, 

I brought this up multiple times in the meeting  and wish to revisit here and hope my comments are not out of turn - either as a new member or inappropriate for my position.  I reiterate my concern and chagrin that we do not, as a body, participate in these discussions often and consistently.  

We are the national governing body of the third largest political party in the US.  Party business does not occur only 4 times a year.  I realize we have staff and committees but this simply is not enough.  There was at least one motion this time of mine was put on the table because I was desperate that there simply wasn't enough interaction here.  We could dispose of a lot and do a lot more effectively if we committed to the fact that we need to be nearly constantly interacting as a governing body.  I find the idea that we have had only one email vote this year quite astounding.

I will be (or I hope other more experienced members will be so that we newer members can learn will be) bringing some motions that were spun off from our meeting.

Let's please commit to actively communicating and leading as a body between meetings through this resource.

If I need to be smacked down for being out of turn here, please be gentle.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Ms. Harlos,

As you have voluntarily agreed to being open to being smacked down, we will only use the implement included in  the picture in this email to do so.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I'm going to partly agree and partly disagree.  I'm not a fan of email ballots, for several reasons.  First, they make it too easy for a "starting majority" to remain in place.  By eliminating 60% of the communication the minority can do - the non-verbal part - they make it easier for the majority to stay in place.  Those who are firmly committed to their views can even glance over, or ignore, debate threads.  This can be done in a real meeting too, but it's harder.  In this way, they threaten the notion that the majority may act, but only after fully hearing from the minority.  Second, they evolved when technology made them feasible (before that people in some organizations relied on mail ballots), but they failed to go away when technology made them less necessary by enabling teleconferences and, far better, videoconferences.  It is one thing to note that we've only had one email ballot in this term, but note also that we've had one videoconference since they were authorized.  Third, they encourage a form of decision-making I think is less than ideal for a board, as I'll discuss below.

I also think email is a bad way to assess where things stand, for much the same reasons, and to craft ideas.  I dislike the process of floating email ballots, although I understand the necessity because email ballots can't be amended.  The whole thing is clunky, regardless of how you try to accomplish it.  

We are, as noted, the board of the third largest political party in the US, and yes, party business takes place all the time.  However, not all party business needs, or wants, our involvement.  The RNC meets three times per year, although its executive committee meets more often - still less often than our EC, though.  Microsoft's board, on the other hand, meets 8 times per year.  The point is, though, that boards are not continually meeting entities, because the work of a board is slow.  Boards set strategic plans and budgets (and, ideally, empower the appropriate people to act within those plans and budgets) and then let things happen.  Both of those are items that play out over time; making changes to them too soon makes them less effective.  One of our problems is that we, too often, take on management roles, engage in micromanagement, etc.  The biggest problem with that is that it leaves a hole where we're supposed to be - if we're busy telling the staff how to clean the cabins, who is steering the ship?  Who is providing oversight functions?  Who is stewarding resources?  We are supposed to, but we can only take on so many roles, and often, the act of trying to imitate management is inconsistent with trying to provide governance.  

I realize this doesn't directly answer your point, but rather goes off on a tangent - if we never went off on tangents, though, we'd just go around in circles. 

Anyway, I do agree that we should be in constant communication through this list - but I don't agree it should be for the purpose, primarily, of passing motions and making decisions.  Rather, boards need cohesion, and they need to foster civil disagreement.  People who only see each other 4 times per year can, more easily, impute poor motives to each other, can, in the time they are apart, imagine people to be far worse than they are, etc.  Staying in communication, and seeing give and take on various issues, even if no decision is reached, can prevent that.  If mass communication, such as this list, is not used, we tend to see atomization; people staying in touch primarily with those with whom they disagree.  Ironically, one of the side effects of this, in my view, is that meetings feature less disagreement - we become less likely to speak up when we disagree if we don't have the perception of a base level of collegiality.  People become afraid of each other, or just prefer to avoid the hassle of intense disagreement - and political fallout that accompanies it.  The more we talk, even if not about topics within our jurisdiction, the better we can get along, which leads to better decisions.  If we only take to the list when we disagree, well...

And, despite what I said, I will also be possibly floating a few email ballots.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

        Dan, if you intend to wield that binder (Caryn's 42-page regional report!) as an instrument of smacking, you better start working out!

Joking aside, I share Caryn's desire for active communication here. While I think Joshua raises some valid concerns about email as a medium for communication and voting, it is what we have at present. No approach is perfect, and in-person meetings have their own drawbacks. I hope we can get videoconferencing implemented as a viable means for meeting more frequently though.

I think online communication would work better for us if we had a better interface. A tool to visibly show the status of current motions and votes, maybe even current threads and who has and has not weighed in on them.

Love & Liberty,

                           ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                  RealR...@earthlink.net

                         (415) 625-FREE

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Hayes
Sent: Jul 18, 2016 9:57 AM
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Participation on LNC email list

Ms. Harlos,

As you have voluntarily agreed to being open to being smacked down, we will only use the implement included in  the picture in this email to do so.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Responding to Joshua and Starchild:

I share Joshua's reticence on email ballots on some (nearly all?) points.  As far as being able to ignore dissenting views, yes... but I presume good faith on the participants and would hope no one would do that.  I believe we are all committed to hear each other out.  But I understand the general concern.

Email voting was not my only concern addressed, it was the need for constant communication by all of the board, not just the chatty few.    

But to this:

== It is one thing to note that we've only had one email ballot in this term, but note also that we've had one videoconference since they were authorized.===

Can I hit "like" on that?  Why *aren't* we doing these often?  We left off our goals discussion due to running out of time.  I think we need that discussion, and I think we need it in far more personal way than emails, and we need a meeting prior to November.  The videoconference option seems ideal.